[General Battuta]

I think you're arguing the wrong thing here Batt. What you should be asking is why would these poor people be better off under a system with no income tax?

Using the figures Mustang posted someone on benefits earns $295 and someone working 35 hours minimum wage earns $253.75. Even if you abolish income tax someone would still be better off staying at home according to their arguments.

So in other words the entire argument is completely inapplicable to the matter of whether or not we should scrap income tax.

That is also a fair point. But I'm still waiting for those statistics, damn it.

Maybe you should start thinking about it logically instead of just relying on one number being higher or lower than another?

Maybe I've already thought it through logically, built several competing models, and am waiting on empirical data to test which one is best?

You know, like scientists do?

This is the only way to determine policy in the real world. Better get used to it.

[BrotherBryon]

So back to the topic at hand, Trying to tackle the debt in any sort of effective means is going to require both spending cuts, and increased revenue (Taxes). The sooner Washington realizes this the better but they are way to polarized right now. The Republicans want to fight it through spending cuts only (Not even touching the military budget though it is one of the bigger aspects of the total budget) and this will simply not work on it's own. The Democrats want to raise taxes but are relunctant to cut funding to various social programs. Bottom line is that things got to change and the status quo is just not sustainable. Not to mention we have a crumbling infrastructure that is going to need heavy investment to replace and or maintain. We will be getting to a point here in the next decade where the simple "patch and pray" system we have now is just not going to be sufficiant to keep things moving. It's high time politicians got their act together and stopped worrying about getting re-elected. Focus on making the hard decisions that must be made.... yeah right like that would ever happen.

[Nuclear1]

You also have to realize there there's absolutely no motivation for poorer people to better themselves as things stand now.

Wait what.

No, no, you can't drive-by "poor people are lazy" posts.

[General Battuta]

I think you're arguing the wrong thing here Batt. What you should be asking is why would these poor people be better off under a system with no income tax?

Using the figures Mustang posted someone on benefits earns $295 and someone working 35 hours minimum wage earns $253.75. Even if you abolish income tax someone would still be better off staying at home according to their arguments.

So in other words the entire argument is completely inapplicable to the matter of whether or not we should scrap income tax.

That is also a fair point. But I'm still waiting for those statistics, damn it.

Maybe you should start thinking about it logically instead of just relying on one number being higher or lower than another?

Actually, dissecting this further will help you develop.

In this thread you've suggested that welfare should be available on the basis of need. This is a fairly laudable notion, but you need to understand why people will oppose it, because they will and they do - vehemently. One of the primary attacks leveled against welfare is the idea that it permits a certain class of undesirables who lack the drive or desire for self-advancement to live as social parasites. This is part of why the assertion was made in the thread that the poor simply lack the motivation to get rich - because welfare enables simple parasitism.

If you want to advance the idea of more extensive welfare for the needy, you need to defeat this objection. How are you going to accomplish that? Outline a battle plan.

[Nuclear1]

People who argue against welfare for the reason that it makes people lazy have apparently never applied for welfare or tried to get any of those benefits.  There are very specific rules and regulations when it comes to applying for food stamps and unemployment benefits--namely, that you have to be actively looking for a job. 

You can't just sit on your ass all day and collect government checks.

[BrotherBryon]

Just like every thing else there are exceptions to that ideal, drive by the nearest section 8 housing complex and look at how many higher priced cars are sitting in the parking lot for example. Not saying it is always the case but it happens enough to be noticed. Now can we please get back the subject at hand.

[General Battuta]

Just like every thing else there are exceptions to that ideal, drive by the nearest section 8 housing complex and look at how many higher priced cars are sitting in the parking lot for example. Not saying it is always the case but it happens enough to be noticed. Now can we please get back the subject at hand.

Sure, if the subject at hand is welfare. Threads wander! (not that we can't talk about the deficit, but we can talk about both)

[BrotherBryon]

True, just out of curiosity though why is it that any time spending cuts gets mentioned everyone gets hung up on welfare?

[General Battuta]

True, just out of curiosity though why is it that any time spending cuts gets mentioned everyone gets hung up on welfare?

jr2 suggested the tax structure was broken because the poor had no incentive to get richer. I asked him to prove it, Kara pointed out it wasn't a fault of the tax structure anyway. Welfare's an obvious culprit in any suggestion to that extent.

[Unknown Target]

True, just out of curiosity though why is it that any time spending cuts gets mentioned everyone gets hung up on welfare?

I proposed in class today that we wipe everything. If you can't fairly make cuts, then cut everything to 0. Then make sure the troops get paid. Then go from there and figure out what you can and want to keep.

[Nuclear1]

Slash the Pentagon's budget.  It's been one of the most useless departments for the last twenty years and has been more responsible for America's problems than welfare ever will be.

oh nuclear y u haet the trewps

[General Battuta]

True, just out of curiosity though why is it that any time spending cuts gets mentioned everyone gets hung up on welfare?

I proposed in class today that we wipe everything. If you can't fairly make cuts, then cut everything to 0. Then make sure the troops get paid. Then go from there and figure out what you can and want to keep.

Again, the issue is creating a politically viable proposal. The very nature of a representative democracy demands that all representatives fight for their constituencies. You need something that will draw the support it needs to pass; realpolitik has to be accounted for.

[Unknown Target]

True, just out of curiosity though why is it that any time spending cuts gets mentioned everyone gets hung up on welfare?

I proposed in class today that we wipe everything. If you can't fairly make cuts, then cut everything to 0. Then make sure the troops get paid. Then go from there and figure out what you can and want to keep.

Again, the issue is creating a politically viable proposal.

I think what defines a viable proposal is what the population desires at the time. If the population want change and they want something they can understand, then what I suggested is a viable proposal.

[jr2]

True, just out of curiosity though why is it that any time spending cuts gets mentioned everyone gets hung up on welfare?

jr2 suggested the tax structure was broken because the poor had no incentive to get richer. I asked him to prove it, Kara pointed out it wasn't a fault of the tax structure anyway. Welfare's an obvious culprit in any suggestion to that extent.

Speaking personally, I'd much rather have my money taken by government based on my habits of spending rather than my habits of working.  In other words, pay into the system for what I take out of it.

This.    You also have to realize there there's absolutely no motivation for poorer people to better themselves as things stand now.  All they stand to do is lose all of their rebates, start getting hammered with taxes, and lose their health benefits.  And then when disaster strikes, they aren't eligible for help because they actually have scrabbled together something resembling assets and thus are disqualified.

What I am saying is, the poorer classes have no incentive to get richer, so that their income that they currently receive through benefits programs will be reduced or cut entirely.  It's a security blanket.  Having your needs met vs. maybe having them met.  You know, if you have to get an operation without health insurance, you could end up owing the hospital more than you make in 15 years (say $300,000 bill and you make $20,000 which is far above the income limit for free health care... now you are stuck).

As far as "proof", I'm looking for some now.  Found an interesting book however I don't know if it even deals with the current topic or what its take is.  The Transition From Welfare to Work: Policies to REduce Public Dependency by Gary Burtless Apparently there's a bunch of other books / articles with this.... it's a lot of reading.  Hence it takes time, unless I wanted to recite talking points.

[General Battuta]

The population has no unified voice or desire - this is the entire purpose of a representative democracy, to speak for all the voices out there. People don't want the same things. Representatives represent that; that's why they're called representatives.

Explain to me how you'd build a viable proposal by cutting all government spending and building it from the ground up. How would you select what to retain? Who would make the decisions?

True, just out of curiosity though why is it that any time spending cuts gets mentioned everyone gets hung up on welfare?

jr2 suggested the tax structure was broken because the poor had no incentive to get richer. I asked him to prove it, Kara pointed out it wasn't a fault of the tax structure anyway. Welfare's an obvious culprit in any suggestion to that extent.

Speaking personally, I'd much rather have my money taken by government based on my habits of spending rather than my habits of working.  In other words, pay into the system for what I take out of it.

This.    You also have to realize there there's absolutely no motivation for poorer people to better themselves as things stand now.  All they stand to do is lose all of their rebates, start getting hammered with taxes, and lose their health benefits.  And then when disaster strikes, they aren't eligible for help because they actually have scrabbled together something resembling assets and thus are disqualified.

What I am saying is, the poorer classes have no incentive to get richer, so that their income that they currently receive through benefits programs will be reduced or cut entirely.  It's a security blanket.  Having your needs met vs. maybe having them met.  You know, if you have to get an operation without health insurance, you could end up owing the hospital more than you make in 15 years (say $300,000 bill and you make $20,000 which is far above the income limit for free health care... now you are stuck).

As far as "proof", I'm looking for some now.  Found an interesting book however I don't know if it even deals with the current topic or what its take is.  The Transition From Welfare to Work: Policies to REduce Public Dependency by Gary Burtless Apparently there's a bunch of other books / articles with this.... it's a lot of reading.  Hence it takes time, unless I wanted to recite talking points.

Cool, thanks. What's interesting to me is not whether it's possible, but how many people actually use this strategy. If the number is low it suggests that it's not a major concern in terms of tax structuring. If it's high it suggests that there's too much of a no-mans-land between benefits and a reasonably paid job.

[General Battuta]

True, just out of curiosity though why is it that any time spending cuts gets mentioned everyone gets hung up on welfare?

I proposed in class today that we wipe everything. If you can't fairly make cuts, then cut everything to 0. Then make sure the troops get paid. Then go from there and figure out what you can and want to keep.

Again, the issue is creating a politically viable proposal.

I think what defines a viable proposal is what the population desires at the time. If the population want change and they want something they can understand, then what I suggested is a viable proposal.

In addition to the above - please don't miss it - let me be more specific about the meaning of viable proposal: do you believe that a proposal to cut all government spending and rebuild the budget from the ground up would even be brought to the floor in the House?

[Unknown Target]

True, just out of curiosity though why is it that any time spending cuts gets mentioned everyone gets hung up on welfare?

I proposed in class today that we wipe everything. If you can't fairly make cuts, then cut everything to 0. Then make sure the troops get paid. Then go from there and figure out what you can and want to keep.

Again, the issue is creating a politically viable proposal.

I think what defines a viable proposal is what the population desires at the time. If the population want change and they want something they can understand, then what I suggested is a viable proposal.

In addition to the above - please don't miss it - let me be more specific about the meaning of viable proposal: do you believe that a proposal to cut all government spending and rebuild the budget from the ground up would even be brought to the floor in the House?

Are you saying that a proposal that is considered viable by the people, would not be considered viable by a member of the House?

[General Battuta]

Please respond to the material I specifically asked you not to neglect. After you do that, we can continue.

[BrotherBryon]

To the floor no, in a committee maybe but highly unlikely. Reaching a consensus on every item in the budget one item at a time would take over a decade if it ever got done at all.

[General Battuta]

To the floor no, in a committee maybe but highly unlikely. Reaching a consensus on every item in the budget one item at a time would take over a decade if it ever got done at all.

And for good reason. Each representative has a responsibility to fight for the interests of their constituents. The Founders intended the government to be a slow, divisive process to ensure that no one group or interest could gain hegemony.